Yellowstone National Park officials say a gunman killed by park rangers as he fired a semiautomatic rifle at the entrance of a dining facility with 200 people inside had told a woman he planned to carry out a mass shooting

The warning from a woman in Yellowstone National Park came in just after midnight on July Fourth: She’d just been held at gunpoint by a man who said he planned to carry out a mass shooting — a random attack common in the U.S. these days but not in the Yellowstone region, let alone the park itself.

Rangers spent the next several hours trying to find the gunman before he showed up outside a dining area with 200 people inside. He shot a barrage of bullets with a semi-automatic rifle at a service entrance.

The rangers — including one who was wounded — shot back. Their rounds hit the attacker, Samson Lucas Bariah Fussner, 28, of Milton, Florida, who died at the scene in the busy Canyon Village tourist lodge area near the scenic Grand Canyon of Yellowstone.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    We seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that if you make it easy for people to obtain weapons that kill with the simple pull of a trigger, there are people who will kill a bunch of people with them.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m okay with responsible gun owners…but it should be difficult to prove that you are. The power of life and death shouldn’t be handed out like candy to anyone who wants it.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Baseball bat, knife, sword, a small amount of rope, axe, hatchet, machete, chainsaw, fireworks, gasoline…

          Here’s the thing:

          1. You already have to pass a background check.

          2. So what more do you want? After that the criteria start to become subjective and will be applied be racists to disarm minorities and poor people.

          Now, I’m actually for some more generalized gun laws, like requiring that the gun or ammo be behind a lock when you’re not in control of it, but that’s not really relevant to stopping mass shootings. Ending mass shootings (a very small fraction of gun deaths) is way more about ending the desire to do such a thing.

          We’ve had easy access to guns for a long time, but mass shootings only started in the 90s, when angry white men felt they were getting left behind and had no way to feel valuable in the new society we’ve been working to build. I would suggest this episode of Some More News to get a quick understanding of angry men, and the book Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get a much deeper look at who these people are and why they act and feel the way that they do.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            False equivalence. When’s the last time you heard about a mass killing using any of those things?

            “No way to prevent this,” says only nation where this regularly happens.

            • Liz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              So, taking away the guns is a solution, I just don’t think we should do that. The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:

              We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn’t have mass shootings. That’s really my fundamental point. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don’t actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.

            • Liz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              So, taking away the guns is a solution to mass shootings I just don’t think we should do that. (You could argue they’d switch to cars.) The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:

              We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn’t have mass shootings. That’s really my fundamental point. Mass shootings are a social phenomenon. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don’t actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.